Appeal No. 2004-1179
Application No. 09/127,284
Based upon the teachings of Walker2, the obviousness rejection of
claim 23 is sustained. In sustaining a multiple reference
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Board may rely on one
reference alone without designating it as a new ground of
rejection. In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496, 131 USPQ 263, 266-67
(CCPA 1961); In re Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458 n.2, 150 USPQ 441,
444 n.2 (CCPA 1966). The obviousness rejections of claims
24 through 39 are sustained because appellant has chosen to let
all of the claims on appeal stand or fall together (brief, page
10), and because appellant has not challenged the examiner’s
contentions concerning the teachings of Katz.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 23 through
28 and 34 through 39 under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 is reversed, and the decision of the examiner rejecting
claims 23 through 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
2 The teachings of Levy (e.g., more profitable calls should
be given a higher priority) are merely cumulative to those
already found in Walker.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007